Ah, really? I didn't realize protons spin. As a unity, or is it also split up?

David Lindley wrote:When the quark picture first emerged in the 1960s, physicists assumed that the three quarks inside a proton each move in a spherically symmetric fashion, creating an object that in many respects acts like a little ball. According to this view, the observed spin of the proton arises simply from the intrinsic spins of the quarks. In the late 1980s, however, experimental evidence began to show that much of a proton's spin comes from so-called orbital motion of the quarks relative to each other, rather than from their individual spins. In addition, it became apparent that quark-antiquark pairs and other particles continually flit in and out of existence inside a proton, all influencing the proton's characteristics.

Mr_Anderson wrote:Interesting Farsight. Not seen it described that way before, I'm not sure how empirically valid it is but then spin is an issue that doesn't lend well to classical representation, nor is it tidily represented by maths as such. I'm the last person to think that anyone has really nailed the actuality beyond the equations and there are a million and one formulations. What we end up with is the fact that waves are wave like and adequately described by formulations of angular momentum, and they may change sign or polarity and they may not according to which fermion they are, beyond that it's very much a matter of interpretation and ideally philosophical.

I think you'll start to see more of this kind of description. Or at least I hope you will. I'm not sure why it's been such a big problem, and can only presume it's because the maths is difficult, as epitomized by "the mystery of the moebius strip" which lasted for 75 years. See http://www.ucl.ac.uk/~ucesest/moebius.html and note that the electron depiction is akin to a "moebius doughnut". It takes two revolutions to return to the original position and oreintation.

Mr_Anderson wrote:No a child can't understand it, even an adult can't that's why it's called science, most people wouldn't know there arse from their elbow, even some people in science. And even I to some extent. That said I'm confused about pair production here? Not sure what you are saying?

It's like riding a bike, once it clicks it's incredibly simple. I find that Falaco solitons are very useful for conceptual grasp. Find a swimming pool or a pond, preferably on a sunny windless day. Take two dinner plates, one in each hand. Dip one of the plates halfway into the water, and stroke it gently forward in a paddling motion whilst lifting it clear. You create a “U-tube” double whirlpool that moves slowly forward through the water. Now step to one side and create another one with the other dinner plate, aimed at the first. When the left-hand-side of one double whirlpool is near the right-hand-side of the other, the two opposite whirlpools move closer together. When the left-hand-side of one double whirlpool is near the left-hand-side of the other, the two similar whirlpools move apart. What you're seeing is a fluid analogy for electromagnetic attraction and repulsion. Now aim two double whirlpools straight at one another, face on. The two double whirlpools meet and merge and are gone with a surprisingly energetic puff of muddy water, which is akin to annihilation.

Pair production is key. It provides the very real scientific evidence that the electron is quite literally "made from light".

Jakob wrote:Greetings Lord Farsight. Thanks for this long awaited response.

Ouch, Jacob. Please don't call me "Lord". Most of this stuff I talk about isn't my own orginal work, It's just a simplified version of what's in peer-reviewed papers that haven't hit the popular media yet. They tend to get crowded out of mags like New Scientist and kept in the shade because too many editors don't know much physics and think string theory is "the only game in town".

Jakob wrote:Is it correct to say that light is made into an electron through the mechanism of spin? That's what I get out of this at first glance. That light is trapped into a self referring path, by splitting in two and revolving around itself, so to speak. Confining it to a more or less set location, making it into something resembling a particle, by inter-inter-interference.

Pretty much. The mechanism of spin is geometrical. The photon is a transient alteration to the geometry of space, so when it travels through itself it doesn't travel in a straight line. Get the wavelength right and make it travel entirely through itself, and it's trapped in a curved path. Then it's an electron with spin and angular momentum, and of course mass and charge. Annihilate an electron by chucking a positron at it, and all you get out is two 511keV photons. You don't get anything else. So whilst an electron doesn't look like light, light is only thing that's there.

The geometry here goes all the way back to Maxwell’s On Physical Lines of Force where he talks about a screw mechanism, see: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?tit ... df&page=53. You can also find a reference to this in Minkowski's wrench analogy about two pages from the end of Space and Time. The electric field is a "twist field" and the magnetic field is a "turn field" view of the selfsame thing when you move through it. Sounds odd, but the right-hand-rule works rather like shoving a drill bit up into your right fist. It's got a twist to it, so it turns:

Unfortunately Heaviside reworked Maxwell's equations and changed them from quarternion to vector form. This reduced the emphasis on rotation and describes "what it does" rather than "what it is". It's important to appreciate that the electric field is not something separate to the magnetic field, they're just two different ways of experiencing the electromagnetic field, (see Jefimenko's equations) and it really is a spatial distortion. Hence the electromagnetic field-variation of a photon is a distortion too. The sine wave traces out a slope, which means the photon is more like a lemon-like pulse. See http://arxiv.org/abs/0803.2596 and it's the "enveloping shape" of figure 2.

Actually New Scientist have run several articles on the issue of string theories lack of evidence. Not even wrong was heavilly featured in that article IIRC Woits refutation of the validity of string theory and also Smolins an ex String Theorists view of the inevitable demise of string theory. I can dredge it out if you want can't remember which issue it was in was about a year ago. I've also seen a brilliant refutation in a paper by a prominent string theory skeptic that pretty much blew the idea out of the water because of it's background independence, I could find that too, but it's burried deep in the google.

I agree string theory is mathematical word play and little more than philosophy. As to your hypothesis, all I can say is we shall see.

I agree light is energy and thus everything is technically made up of light that's obvious and no one would disagree with that. I'm not so sure that pair production reveals anything but an exchange of energy when a photon comes into contact with an atom, in that case that is clearly just the energy of the whole system becoming two pair particles, and is not all that special or remarkable. People often get the faulty impression that the electron absorbs all the photons energy but it is in fact the whole system that changes according to the energy states of its constituents.

It makes as little sense to talk only about a photon electron interaction in an atom as it does to talk about any statistical state as being reflective of just one thing not an ensemble.

You seem to be underestimating the importance of pair production. It's more than just the energy of the system becoming two pair particles. Yes, the nucleus absorbs some of the incoming photon energy, but it's so massive the momentum transfer is slight. The bulk of the balance acquires rotational motion at c rather has a linear motion, and the electron and positron are created, along with mass and charge along with spin 1/2, angular momentum, zitterbewegung, etc. This means mass and charge are not fundamental, and that the electron is not point particle. Pair production says so very much, and yet there's nothing in the textbooks that describes the underlying mechanism. And it isn't necessarily a photon-nucleus interaction, it can be a photon-photon interaction too, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pair_production. Two bosons create two fermions, or vice versa, because when an electron and positron annihilate, the result is mere light. More interestingly, in proton-antiproton annihilation, the end product isn't quarks and gluons. There's various routes, such as the production of neutral pions, which decay into gamma photons in ten to the minus sixteen seconds.

Mr Anderson wrote:It makes as little sense to talk only about a photon electron interaction in an atom as it does to talk about any statistical state as being reflective of just one thing not an ensemble.

I'm not sure what you mean here. A photon/electron interaction within an atom usually involves the excitation of a bound electron, but nevermind. Note that this isn't really my hypothesis, it's mainly a synthesis drawn from papers that tend to go unreported.

Thanks. That's a bit of information I've been looking for for some time. What is so interesting about string theory that keeps this out of circulation? Do you think stringtheory is viable, or valuable to the field of physics?

I read that quarks consist of some kind of color shifting. Is that comparable in any way with the light trapped in an electron? I mean in the sense of being trapped my some mechanism, and by collision released?

Jakob wrote:Thanks. That's a bit of information I've been looking for for some time. What is so interesting about string theory that keeps this out of circulation? Do you think stringtheory is viable, or valuable to the field of physics?

No I think it's valuable to modelling chaotic systems but not directly to physics.

I read that quarks consist of some kind of color shifting. Is that comparable in any way with the light trapped in an electron? I mean in the sense of being trapped my some mechanism, and by collision released?

Colour really has no direct corelation with light as such it's just the same with flavour of quark ie up, down, charm, strange, top, bottom, it's just a term to denote they come in varieties, in the case of colour it is commonly denoted by red green and blue and the anti particles being anti each respectively. They also have different charges and share the same 1/2 integer spin as other fermions. Colours can shift and mediate the strong force that binds the particle together, the colours always remain neutral or white within a fermion or baryon, hence red/green/blue.

Light isn't trapped in an electron nor does it exist as anything but energy emission or absorption. the mechanism is explained by electromagnetism although obviously the strong force takes part in all other force interactions although to a very limited extent in gravity.

Jakob wrote:Thanks. That's a bit of information I've been looking for for some time. What is so interesting about string theory that keeps this out of circulation? Do you think string theory is viable, or valuable to the field of physics?

I wouldn't say it was string theory per se, Jakob. It's more of a ongoing conflict between mathematical physics and experimental physics. If you look at say New Scientist and compare it with the Institute of Physics website http://physicsworld.com/cws/home, it's as if they're talking about two different subjects. New Scientist says "string theory is the only game in town", but string theory is hardly mentioned on the IOP website. I think string theory has been a disaster for physics.

Jakob wrote:I read that quarks consist of some kind of color shifting. Is that comparable in any way with the light trapped in an electron? I mean in the sense of being trapped my some mechanism, and by collision released?

No, it's something different. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Color_charge and note that it says The "color" of quarks and gluons is completely unrelated to visual perception of color. Rather, it is a whimsical name for a property that has almost no manifestation at distances above the size of an atomic nucleus. But protons and their constituent quarks are comparable with the light trapped in an electron. Check out proton/antiproton annihilation, and the end product is light. You'll see mention of say neutral pions, but they only last for ten to the minus sixteen seconds before turning into into two gamma photons. Hyperphysics is quite a good website for reading up on this sort of thing, see for example http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/HB ... adron.html.

Mr Anderson: the electron is quite literally made from light via pair production. It really is. Annihilate it, and the result is light. So whilst you don't currently read that it's made of "trapped light" in textbooks or on the internet, I'm confident that one day you will. You have to look to the scientific evidence. And when you look at proton/antiproton annihilation, you can say the same for the proton. I mean, it's hardly made of cheese, now is it? See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quark_(cheese) .

Jakob wrote:Thanks. That's a bit of information I've been looking for for some time. What is so interesting about string theory that keeps this out of circulation? Do you think string theory is viable, or valuable to the field of physics?

I wouldn't say it was string theory per se, Jakob. It's more of a ongoing conflict between mathematical physics and experimental physics. If you look at say New Scientist and compare it with the Institute of Physics website http://physicsworld.com/cws/home, it's as if they're talking about two different subjects. New Scientist says "string theory is the only game in town", but string theory is hardly mentioned on the IOP website. I think string theory has been a disaster for physics.

Not a disaster there a just a hell of a lot of physicists twiddling their thumbs atm. String theory is used in materials science and various environmental systems, so it isn't useless except to physics itself or in what it claims to be: a theory of everything. it's what happens when you give a pure mathemetician too much wiggle room and start believing imaginative fiction is science.

New Scientist aims to sell copies, it is like SciAm a popularist science mag, so it goes with what is popular or interesting to its mostly lay audience. As you can see though science is turning on string theory and slowly people are getting that message, as they do NS will start to publish more and more articles that attack string theory, being as they are a follower of trends in science. It is the nature of the beast, as you say if you want rigorous science rather that imaginative and entertaining fluff then read physics world et al. You have to remember that the cover story sells issues, so saying something like the universe is a computer programme on the cover sells copies, there are more rigorous articles in there too. It appeals to the widest possible audience which also happens to contain the happy clapper string theorist adherents.

Jakob wrote:Thanks for the insights, Farsight. This is well beyond what I expected when I started the thread.

Spin then seems to be the mechanism by which matter exists, and light the essential nature of existence.

Could be? Frankly we're at kind of an impasse atm, because we can't experimentally see light as it is. So Farsight might be right, anyone could be atm; it's a very exciting time to be alive in science. There are some things we can discount string theory for example, but others more background dependant appear to carry at least an outside chance of being true. Watch this space.

Now I'll go on record saying in my opinion Farsight's wrong, but what I can't do is prove it. And likewise atm all interpretational issues are pretty much philososophical. I've talked to Farsight in PM and he agrees, his views are atm not theory. So I have no problem with looking at things on the level of the philosophical. This is after all a philosophy forum.

The thing is Mr Anderson, that in pair production we really do make electrons out of light. And electrons really do have angular momentum. Plus, they don't zip past you at c. Whilst that might not constitute a theory, I'd say it's not so much philosophical as cut and dried.

Mr_Anderson wrote: I've talked to Farsight in PM and he agrees, his views are atm not theory.

What views? He only communicated certain facts.In this case the facts are so far reaching that they seem to make elaborate theory somewhat redundant. Especially striking when this is seen to the background of string theory.

So I have no problem with looking at things on the level of the philosophical. This is after all a philosophy forum.

I posted on a physics subforum because I only wanted to know how things work, not why. If you see a philosophical angle, what is it?

Mr_Anderson wrote: I've talked to Farsight in PM and he agrees, his views are atm not theory.

What views? He only communicated certain facts.In this case the facts are so far reaching that they seem to make elaborate theory somewhat redundant. Especially striking when this is seen to the background of string theory.

So I have no problem with looking at things on the level of the philosophical. This is after all a philosophy forum.

I posted on a physics subforum because I only wanted to know how things work, not why. If you see a philosophical angle, what is it?

Interpretational issues.

We both agree energy is the fundamental unit of all matter in the universe, his ideas go a little further than that though.

It's not hard to make string theory redundant, it's name does that, it is not a theory.

Energy is a broader term. Everyone knows by now that matter is made of it, we know it by Einsteis definition of E, for example. But the mechanism of translation is not explained. That mechanism is what is being addressed. If you have any knowledge about it (I dont mean knowledge of which magazine sells and why, but of physics - and by that I dont mean writing a post full of names and references, but explanations of mechanisms) you are invited to share it.

Energy is a broader term. Everyone knows by now that matter is made of it, we know it by Einsteis definition of E, for example. But the mechanism of translation is not explained. That mechanism is what is being addressed. If you have any knowledge about it (I dont mean knowledge of which magazine sells and why, but of physics - and by that I dont mean writing a post full of names and references, but explanations of mechanisms) you are invited to share it.

Light is either a group of photons or a single photon, which do you mean?

Everything is energy, matter is energy in a different but analagous form.

I have an explanation of the model it's called the standard model. It's not twists and bends, it is just spin. Beyond that is purely philosophical atm. Ask Farsight it's his "theory" but he goes beyond just light is energy and matter is equivalent. This we all understand and accept, we also except that the photon is the smallest quanta of energy that can exist as a whole "particle". These are not revelations, these are what science agrees on atm.

Jakob: there are interpretational issues everywhere you look in physics. What tends to happen is that one particular interpretation becomes the consensus, and alternative interpretations are described as "wrong". But it isn't black and white, the consensus interpretation might not be wholly correct, and the "wrong" interpretation might not be wholly wrong. For example if you read about the standard model, you'll be told that protons and neutrons are made of quarks. See for example http://www2.slac.stanford.edu/vvc/theor ... ental.html where you read "Today, quarks and leptons, and their antiparticles, are candidates for being the fundamental building blocks from which all else is made." And yet you can make a lepton such as the electron out of light via pair production, and when you annihilate a proton and an antiproton, you don't get quarks. There are various routes, but you typically see pions, which then decay very rapidly into gamma photons. See for example http://www.springerlink.com/content/b121n578740ux17m/ and look at the free preview. Neutrinos muddy the water a little, but in essence, what you get, is light. Note that I'm not against the standard model. Instead I consider it to be incomplete, and burdened by some interpretational issues that have hampered its completion.

From the perspective of matter=light+mechanism, the quark seems to be part of the mechanism by which substance is kept together - by which light is trapped. It is not retrieved, only perceived, right? I mean it can't be distilled, so to speak, from the nucleus, or can it? How can they even observe a quark, now that I really think about it?

Observations pertaining to entangled states appear to conflict with the property of relativity that information cannot be transferred faster than the speed of light. Although two entangled systems appear to interact across large spatial separations, the current state of belief is that no useful information can be transmitted in this way, meaning that causality cannot be violated through entanglement. This is the statement of the no-communication theorem.

Even if information cannot be transmitted through entanglement alone, it is believed[who?] that it is possible to transmit information using a set of entangled states used in conjunction with a classical information channel. This process is known as quantum teleportation. Despite its name, quantum teleportation may still not permit information to be transmitted faster than light, because a classical information channel is required to complete the process.

In addition experiments are underway to see if entanglement is the result of retrocausality.[4][5]

Relativity is about to go out the window! ..."“There is a growing sense that the properties of the universe are best described not by the laws that govern matter but by the laws that govern information..."

"By exploiting the quantum energy fluctuations in entangled particles, physicists may be able to inject energy in one particle, and extract it in another particle located light-years away." Re:: http://www.physorg.com/news184597481.html

"All things are preceded by the mind, led by the mind, created by the mind." - Dhammapada

capslockf9 wrote:"By exploiting the quantum energy fluctuations in entangled particles, physicists may be able to inject energy in one particle, and extract it in another particle located light-years away." Re:: http://www.physorg.com/news184597481.html

How does one go about extracting energy from a particle light years away? Or does it only mean that this would in theory be possible because of entanglement?What has changed in relation to what Anthem posted? Have there been successful expieriments?